RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Ajay Rastogi, J.
Surajmal Jat and others - Appellant
Versus
State and another - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3229 of 2009 and 32 other Petitions.
Decided On : 8-12-2009
RAJASTHAN PANCHAYATI RAJ PRABODHAK SERVICE RULES, 2008 - TEACHING EXPERIENCE - VERIFICATION OF CERTIFICATE - CONDITIONS - VALIDITY - CONDITIONS FOR VERIFICATION OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE HELD TO BE NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE SCHEME OF RULES, 2008 AND QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, who had applied for the post of Prabodhak under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 ('Rules of 2008'), challenged the conditions imposed by the respondents for verification of their teaching experience certificates. The conditions required the educational institutions to provide information about the applicant's appointment procedure, pay scale, and any breaks in service.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the conditions imposed by the respondents for verification of teaching experience certificates were not in conformity with the scheme of Rules of 2008. The Court found that the Rules of 2008 only required teaching experience from a recognized institution and did not distinguish between different types of teaching experience, such as ad hoc, urgent temporary, contractual, or regular.
Issues: Whether the conditions imposed by the respondents for verification of teaching experience certificates were valid and in conformity with the scheme of Rules of 2008.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the conditions imposed by the respondents for verification of teaching experience certificates were not in conformity with the scheme of Rules of 2008 because they supplemented the requirement of eligibility under the Rules of 2008. The Court found that the Rules of 2008 did not distinguish between different types of teaching experience and that the respondents could not impose additional requirements through administrative directions.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petitions and quashed the conditions imposed by the respondents for verification of teaching experience certificates. The Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioners as eligible for appointment to the post of Prabodhak if they had furnished their certificates of five years continuous experience from a recognized institution as required under Rules of 2008.
"20. Many of the writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners on the ground they have gained the requisite experience but the experience certificate given by the school concerned has not been countersigned by the concerned District Education Officer and in absence of counter signature, their candidature has not been considered for appointment on the post of Prabodhak.
21. In this regard, this Court deem it proper to direct the respondents to verify the experience certificate submitted by the petitioners from the record of the concerned school and if it is found correct, then the same may be countersigned by the concerned District Education Officer. However, it is made clear that the experience certificate which have been issued by the recognised educational institution or project, can only be considered.
22. In few of the cases, the District Education Officer has countersigned the experience certificate but later on the same has been withdrawn. In such cases also, the respondents are directed to verify the experience of the particular petitioner from the record of the school and if it is found correct, then the same be considered for appointment on the post of Prabodhak even the counter signature on the post of Prabodhak even the counter signature has been withdrawn by the District Education Officer."
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.